DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Biosecurity in Western Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Biosecurity in Western Australia Environmental biosecurity in Western Australia 1 Introduction 1.1 Background In 2013, during investigations of cross-agency collaboration, the Biosecurity Council of Western Australia (the Council) identified a fundamental breakdown in situations where biosecurity actions span multiple State Government agencies — such as for environmental biosecurity. The reasons for this breakdown are complex, and have been highlighted in further work undertaken by the Council since that time. In broad terms, the issues can be categorised into i) definitions; ii) roles and responsibilities; and iii) resourcing; with unclear government policy an important contributing factor. In late 2016, the Council resolved to further this work, with a focus on how environmental biosecurity is being addressed in Western Australia. The Council held a workshop with members of the Biosecurity Senior Officers Group (BSOG) in April 2017 to discuss and clarify State Government activities to maintain the biosecurity of Western Australia’s environmental assets. Initial scoping identified two key areas requiring attention: harmonising a whole-of-government approach; and resourcing. The workshop enabled these areas to be explored and the issues to come to the fore. The information from the workshop, coupled with the Council deliberations, form the foundation of this report. 1.2 Environmental biosecurity definition The Council has adopted the definition of ‘environmental biosecurity’ proposed in the IGAB review (Craik, Palmer and Sheldrake 2017) — that is, ‘environmental biosecurity is the management of risks to the natural environment, and to social amenity, of pests and diseases entering, emerging, establishing or spreading’. In line with the national environmental biosecurity stocktake: • ‘environment’ includes the natural terrestrial, inland water and marine ecosystem and their constituent parts, and their natural and physical resources • ‘social amenity’ includes the social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment, including tourism, human infrastructure, cultural assets and national image. For the purposes of this report, managing widespread and established pests and diseases is not within the scope of this definition. February 2018 1.3 Acronyms ARM Act Aquatic Resources Management Act 2016 BAM Act Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 BSOG Biosecurity Senior Officers Group DAWR Department of Agriculture and Water Resources DBCA Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions DPIRD Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development IGAB Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity NEBRA National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement 2 Environmental biosecurity in Australia 2.1 National arrangements At the national level, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR) coordinates Australia’s biosecurity, including managing the biosecurity risk to Australia’s natural environment and social amenity. The work of DAWR is underpinned by the Biosecurity Act 2015, which primarily addresses how biosecurity risks associated with goods, people and conveyances entering Australia are managed (i.e. preventing pests and diseases from entering Australia). The Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity (IGAB) is the fundamental agreement to share the responsibility of biosecurity, including environmental biosecurity, between Australian governments. The purpose of the IGAB is to 'enhance Australia's biosecurity system' and strengthen the collaborative approach between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments (IGAB 2012). A key deliverable under the IGAB is the National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement (NEBRA) — a formal agreement between jurisdictions that sets out a framework, including cost-sharing, for responding to national-level environmental biosecurity incidents. The national environmental biosecurity obligations of Australian States and Territories are reinforced by other agreements such as the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. As a nation, Australia also has international obligations, such as that of the Convention on Biological Diversity, where parties are required to ‘as far as possible and as appropriate, prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species’ (United Nations 1992). It must be noted that it is the Commonwealth Department of Environment that has the responsibility for these obligations, as well as other environmental biosecurity related activities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Page 2 of 11 It has been almost a decade since the Beale review of biosecurity in Australia highlighted the need for increased effort toward the biosecurity of the natural environment (Beale et al. 2008). Following on from this, Hawke (2009) argued that environmental biosecurity should be as important as biosecurity for human health and primary production. Over recent years there has been an increasing focus on the biosecurity of Australia’s environment and social amenity. In 2015, the Environment and Communications Reference Committee presented its report following an inquiry into ‘the adequacy of arrangements to prevent the entry and establishment of invasive species likely to harm Australia’s natural environment’. More recently, reviews of the IGAB1 and the NEBRA2 have been completed; and the National Biosecurity Committee has instigated ‘environmental biosecurity roundtables’ to provide environmental biosecurity stakeholders an opportunity to engage with government. There are four themes that are consistent across the recent reviews and roundtables: • Environmental biosecurity risks are increasing • Environmental biosecurity is complex, and incursions are difficult and expensive to address • Environmental biosecurity does not get the pre-emptive planning and action that goes into agricultural biosecurity; however, it is just as important as biosecurity for primary industries and human health • Environmental biosecurity requires private/non-government as well as government participation and awareness, including increased participation from environmental agencies. A total of 46 recommendations were put forward through the inquiry and reviews mentioned above to improve Australia’s environmental biosecurity. The Australian Government response to the recommendations is generally supportive, with the view that the ‘most effective approach to addressing these unique difficulties is to continue to strengthen the existing biosecurity system, which is designed to manage biosecurity risks to all sectors’ (Australian Government 2017). 2.2 Western Australian arrangements In line with the national arrangements, the Western Australian government agency with responsibility for agriculture (currently, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development — DPIRD) has lead responsibility for biosecurity in Western Australia. Within this mandate, DPIRD is the custodian of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 (BAM Act). It is also custodian of the Aquatic Resources Management Act 2016 (ARM Act), which governs the conservation of the state’s aquatic resources and protection of aquatic ecosystems, including managing aquatic 1 See Craik, Palmer and Sheldrake 2017, ‘Priorities for Australia’s biosecurity system: An independent review of the national biosecurity system and its underpinning intergovernmental agreement’, Canberra. 2 See KPMG 2017, ‘National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement: Five year review. Final Report – May 2017. Page 3 of 11 biosecurity. Furthermore, under State Emergency Management arrangements the Agriculture Director General is the Hazard Management Authority for emergency management of animal/plant pests and diseases and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development the Controlling Agency (Office of Emergency Management 2016). Organisms that pose a biosecurity risk may be ‘declared’ under the BAM Act, including those that impact upon the environment and social amenity — in fact, the potential for a species to have adverse effects on the environment is a core criterion used to determine an organism’s status under the BAM Act. Similarly, the ARM Act also allows for the declaration of organisms that may have an adverse impact on aquatic biodiversity or the aquatic environment. The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), of which the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) is custodian, also includes provisions relevant to environmental biosecurity. Here, species that pose a risk to biodiversity or biodiversity components may be declared as environmental pests. Furthermore, threatening processes3 can be listed as ‘key threatening processes’ under this Act, and regulations may be made to prevent, eradicate, reduce and contain key threatening processes4. This is similar to the provisions in the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, although the Commonwealth Act addresses threatening processes through threat abatement plans. Western Australia’s Environmental Protection Act 1986, although silent on biosecurity, also aims to protect the environment from threatening processes. In essence, species or process declarations under these Acts enable government intervention to mitigate the risk posed by the species/processes, such as border controls, eradication and control activities. Given the relevance of the different legislation to environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biosecurity in Australia: a Working Partnership and Shared Responsibility
    Biosecurity in Australia: a working partnership and shared responsibility Dennis Bittisnich Biosecurity Services Group Outline • Australian agriculture in context • Biosecurity control in Australia: a brief background • PPPs in Australian biosecurity: a shared responsibility • Observations: key factors in Australian biosecurity PPPs Australian Agriculture in Context • Geographically isolated; unique flora and fauna; many climatic zones • Political federation of 8 state and territory governments under a commonwealth government • Only 10% land area is arable • 0.3% global population • 3% of global agricultural trade • Beef, wheat, wine, wool, lamb, feed, dairy Australian Agriculture in Context • Historically Australian economy “rode on the sheep’s back”; significant wool, lamb and cereal exporter • Ag nearly 30% of national GDP at peak (now 5% GDP; 60% is exported; 5:1 export:import) • Premium for “clean green” credentials; esp. from favourable animal/plant disease status • Biosecurity threats were thus high on industry, political, and trade agenda Australian Agriculture in Context • In last 10-15 years: exports levelled off; drought & international competition • Agri-food imports doubled; mostly from developing countries • International passengers and cargo doubled - globalization • Emerging/altered spread of disease • ALSO: Trading partner requirements/SPS disciplines more rigorously applied Biosecurity control in Australia • Historically public management of biosecurity (also food safety; ag R&D) seen as a government “public good” (beneficiaries
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Biosecurity Funding Approaches Ahchow Et Al
    Australian Biosecurity Funding Approaches Ahchow et al. Australasian Agribusiness Perspectives 2017, Volume 20, Paper 8 ISSN: 1442-6951 Biosecurity in Australia: An Assessment of the Current Funding Approach Ruth Ahchowa, Garry Griffithb and Susan Hesterc * a Former postgraduate student, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville; and Director, Economics, Regulation and Policy, EY, Melbourne. b Principal Fellow, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville; and Professorial Research Fellow, UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale. c Senior Research Fellow, UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale; and Chief Investigator, Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract Australian governments and industries have limited resources to tackle established pests and diseases and to prevent new incursions. As the biosecurity threats to Australia’s economy, environment and society change, it is important that the funding and governance of responses are appropriately aligned and resourced. Key decisions concern which biosecurity threats will receive funding, how much funding they will receive, and who will be responsible for providing the funding. In this paper we review the current national approach to biosecurity funding, and a high level assessment is made against economic and public policy principles for allocation of resources to biosecurity. The review finds that the primary assessment for determining funding of national biosecurity response is benefit-cost analysis. However, benefit-cost analysis is often restricted to providing a net benefit of responding to one plant or animal pest or disease. The conclusion is that an approach which considers a portfolio of pests and diseases may be more appropriate in a limited resource environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosecurity and Quarantine Arrangements
    Biosecurity and quarantine arrangements Senate Inquiry – August 2010 Contents 1 Summary ................................................................................................................... 3 2 Terms of Reference...................................................................................................... 3 2.1 The adequacy of current biosecurity and quarantine arrangements, including resourcing 3 2.2 Projected demand and resourcing requirements ....................................................... 5 2.3 Progress in implementation of the ‘Beale Review’ recommendations and their place in meeting projected biosecurity demand and resourcing ......................................................... 6 2.4 Any related matters ............................................................................................. 9 Biosecurity and quarantine arrangements 2 Senate Inquiry – August 2010 1 Summary The Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB) started operating in November 2005 in recognition of the need to strengthen the plant biosecurity scientific capacity of Australia. The CRCNPB coordinates plant biosecurity research across all Australian states and territories and has an extensive collaborative network of researchers and educators from 24 participating organisations representing industry, universities, state and Australian governments. A key strength of the CRCNPB is the involvement of its participants who are, in many cases, end- users of research results. This ensures maximum benefit
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Biosecurity in Australia
    Proceedings VII World Avocado Congress 2011 (Actas VII Congreso Mundial del Aguacate 2011). Cairns, Australia. 5 – 9 September 2011 Plant biosecurity in Australia – a powerful government–industry partnership Greg Fraser Plant Health Australia Abstract The ability of governments and industries to work together and share responsibility for designing and managing the plant biosecurity system in Australia has been a crucial development over the last 15 years. Plant Health Australia (PHA) was established in 2000 as a not-for-profit company to breathe life into this partnership and support its strengthening and expansion over time. The model’s success has enabled a wide range of nationally significant challenges to be addressed and agreements to be put in place to deliver improved biosecurity outcomes. While the partnership continues to evolve there are lessons to be drawn from the experience of Australia and the potential for transfer of the approach to other countries. PHA, as the national coordinating body for plant biosecurity in Australia, services the needs of its government and industry members and acts as an independent advocate for the national plant biosecurity system. The company’s efforts help minimise new plant pest impacts, enhance Australia’s plant biosecurity status, assist trade and market access for Australia’s plant products, safeguard the livelihood of producers, support the sustainability and profitability of plant industries and the communities that rely upon them, and preserve environmental health and amenity. Key words Plant, biosecurity, Australia, government, industry, partnership, national Introduction Australia, in plant biosecurity terms, is the lucky country. Natural geographic isolation and a strong focus on biosecurity have ensured that Australia remains free from many plant pests that adversely affect agriculture, horticulture and forestry in other parts of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Biosecurity in Australia
    Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, vol. 152, part 1, 2019, pp. 121–128. ISSN 0035-9173/19/010121-08 The future of biosecurity in Australia Eddie Holmes Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, and School of Life & Environmental Sciences and Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney E-mail: [email protected] was assigned the task of talking about If it had come here, who knows what would I biosecurity, and biosecurity, it turns out, have happened. SARS was a major warning is an extremely broad term that can be used shock. in a wide variety of ways so I’m just going to At the same time as these human out- use it in the context of, as Brian notes, infec- breaks, our cultural systems face a very major tious diseases, particularly on what Australia threat too. Exactly at the same time as SARS, may need to do to prevent and respond to in the Netherlands there was an outbreak future epidemics. (which I’m sure you haven’t heard about) of H7N7 influenza, a very nasty, highly viru- SARS and other ’flu-like respiratory lent H7 strain of avian ’flu. This was com- viruses pletely concurrent with the SARS outbreak. If you wind the clock back just a few years, The Dutch authorities were so scared about you all remember the SARS outbreak of this that they basically went through a mass 2003. The numbers of people infected were culling operation of chickens in Holland to not actually that great: overall globally about eliminate the virus.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosecurity Manual for Sugarcane Producers
    Biosecurity Manual for Sugarcane Producers A guide to farm biosecurity measures to reduce the risks of weeds, pests and diseases impacting production Version 1.0 January 2017 © Plant Health Australia Limited 2017 Copyright in this publication is owned by Plant Health Australia Limited, except when content has Plant Health Australia (PHA) is the national been provided by other contributors, in which case coordinator of the government-industry partnership copyright may be owned by another person. With for plant biosecurity in Australia. As a not-for-profit the exception of any material protected by a trade company, PHA services the needs of Members and mark and except where otherwise indicated in independently advocates on behalf of the national this publication, this publication is licensed under plant biosecurity system. a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. Any use of this publication, other than as PHA’s efforts help minimise plant pest impacts, authorised under this licence or copyright enhance Australia’s plant health status, assist trade, law, is prohibited. safeguard the livelihood of producers, support the creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ sustainability and profitability of plant industries and the communities that rely upon them, and preserve environmental health and amenity. planthealthaustralia.com.au This details the relevant licence conditions, including the full legal code. This licence allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit CANEGROWERS is the peak body for Australian to Plant Health Australia (as below). sugarcane growers. CANEGROWERS Australia In referencing this document, the preferred citation is: represents around 80% of Australia’s sugarcane Plant Health Australia Ltd (2017) Biosecurity Manual growers.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosecurity Program
    2 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 Background ........................................................................................................................... 5 Drivers of Change .................................................................................................................. 6 National Bee Biosecurity Program ............................................................................................ 8 Aim ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 10 Code of Practice ...................................................................................................................... 10 Expected Outcomes and Benefits ........................................................................................... 11 Scope ................................................................................................................................. 12 Stakeholders ....................................................................................................................... 12 National Management and Governance ................................................................................... 13 Bee Biosecurity Program Steering Committee .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Biosecurity Approach
    08 2016 ENG The Biosecurity Approach A review and evaluation of its application by IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW AND SUPPORT SYSTEM FAO, internationally and in various countries International Plant Protection Convention Protecting the world’s plant resources from pests 08 2016 The Biosecurity Approach A review and evaluation of its application by FAO, internationally and in various countries IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Publication notes: Version 1.0 Published August 2016. This paper reviews and evaluates current biosecurity approaches, specifically approaches be- ing applied in various international bodies and individual countries. This paper was drafted by M. Megan Quinlan, James Alden, Ferdinand Habbel and Rebecca Murphy, through Imperial Col- lege Consultants Ltd., and reviewed by the IPPC Implementation Facilitation Unit. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by email to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Border Forest Biosecurity in Australia: Response to Recent Exotic Detections, Current Surveillance and Ongoing Needs
    Article Post-Border Forest Biosecurity in Australia: Response to Recent Exotic Detections, Current Surveillance and Ongoing Needs Angus J. Carnegie 1,* and Helen F. Nahrung 2 1 Forest Science, NSW Department of Primary Industries—Forestry, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia 2 Forest Industries Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD 4558, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 11 March 2019; Accepted: 10 April 2019; Published: 14 April 2019 Abstract: Assessing exotic pest response and eradication programs can identify factors that will lead to increased pest detection and provide information for prioritizing and enhancing future eradication attempts. We review the forest-related insect and pathogen detections and responses in Australia between 1996 and 2017. Thirty-four detections of new exotic forest species were made in this timeframe; seventeen each of insects and pathogens. Twenty-nine of the species are now established in mainland Australia and another in the Torres Strait. Four of the established species cause high impact, and three of these were subject to failed eradication programs. Two of the four established high-impact species were not previously recognised as threats; indeed, 85% of all new detections were not considered high-priority risks. Only one forest pest has been successfully eradicated, suggesting a lower success rate of Australian forest eradication programs than the world average. Most of these exotic pests and pathogens were not detected early enough to attempt eradication, or they were not deemed a significant enough pest to warrant an eradication attempt. Early detection is key to successful eradication.
    [Show full text]
  • PBRI Strategy 2018-23
    Plant Biosecurity Research Initiative Strategy 2018-2023 Contents About the Strategy 5 Background 6 About Us 9 PBRI Principles 10 Alignment to National Strategies 12 Operating Environment 16 Our Scope 18 Stakeholders and Investors 20 Governance 22 Our Drivers 23 Strategic Goals 25 PLANT BIOSECURITY RESEARCH INITIATIVE STRATEGY 2018-2023 3 Plant Biosecurity Research Initiative at a glance About the strategy Purpose Stakeholders and Investors The Plant Biosecurity Research Initiative (PBRI) Measures of Success To foster coordination and collaboration for • PBRI member organisations Strategy provides a high-level framework and Our measures of success will be in the demonstration targeted investment in high value, cross-sectoral, • Plant industries, peak industry bodies and growers directionfor coordinating cross-sectoral priorities of achieving our three strategic goals. plant biosecurity research, development and • Regional communities for nationalplant biosecurity RD&E. extension (RD&E) • Australian Government The Strategy outlines PBRI’s purpose, vision, goals, • State government biosecurity agencies • Goal 1: Identification of targeted cross- investment model and a set of Key Focus Areas for Vision • National extension networks sectoral plant biosecurity innovation for activities from 2018-2023. PBRI activities aim to To support excellence in cross-sectoral plant • National plant biosecurity committees co-investment. protect Australia’s plant production industries with biosecurity RD&E to protect Australia’s plant • Researchers • Goal 2: Responsive coordination and benefits to regional communities, the economy, and industries in a highly responsive manner, with benefit leveraging high value cross-sectoral the environment. to the environment and regional communities. Strategic Goals investment in plant biosecurity • Goal 1: Identification of targeted cross-sectoral innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Biosecurity Timeline
    PLANT BIOSECURITY IN AUSTRALIA A timeline of plant biosecurity events pre 1900s. Pre 1900s William Farrer joins the New For over 60,000 years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people undertook many agricultural and land management South Wales Department of practices, e.g. fire, while maintaining soil fertility. It is Agriculture with an aim to estimated they used around 5,000 species of food, including South Australia legislates the Vines Protection produce wheat varieties that will tubers such as yams, grain such as native millet, macadamia be rust-resistant, have a higher nuts, fruits and berries. In order to manage pests, they utilised Act 1874 and bans movement of vine cuttings protein content and better milling techniques such as the burning of leaves to repel insects and and rooted vines allowing them to remain free Vineyards in Geelong, fire to maintain species diversity in the landscape of the sap-sucking insects known as phylloxera Victoria are uprooted to and baking quality 1874 manage the outbreak of 1898 phylloxera Stem rust, a devastating wheat disease, 1882 forces farmers to grow wheat inland 1840 where it is drier and hotter 1860 1788 1845 1877 1884 1890 The first wheat is The first shipments of Phylloxera spreads Colonial governments sown in Australia Following the first reported north to New South Australian grown wheat are sighting of the insect in 1875, establish a series of The First Fleet Wales after it is exported to England phylloxera is positively annual national brings orange, detected in Camden identified in Australia in conferences to address lime and lemon 1839 Geelong, Victoria after how best to fight wheat seeds to New infested grapevine planting stem rust South Wales Prickly pear is introduced material is imported from into Australia for use as a Europe 1889 natural agricultural fence A severe rust epidemic costs the 1886 wheat industry £2-3 From 1886 to 1929, rabbit barrier million in lost 1859 and check fences are erected in production 13 European wild rabbits are released Queensland.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosecurity Manual for the Papaya Industry
    Biosecurity Manual for the Papaya Industry Reducing the risk of pests entering and becoming established in your orchard Version 1.0 Plant Health Australia (PHA) is the national © Plant Health Australia 2013 coordinator of the government-industry Copyright in this publication is owned by Plant partnership for plant biosecurity in Australia. Health Australia Limited, except when content As a not-for-profit company, PHA services has been provided by other contributors, the needs of Members and independently in which case copyright may be owned by advocates on behalf of the national plant another person. With the exception of any biosecurity system. PHA’s efforts help material protected by a trade mark and except minimise plant pest impacts, enhance where otherwise indicated in this publication, Australia’s plant health status, assist trade, this publication is licensed under a Creative safeguard the livelihood of producers, Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. support the sustainability and profitability Any use of this publication, other than as of plant industries and the communities authorised under this licence or copyright that rely upon them, and preserve law, is prohibited. environmental health and amenity. www.planthealthaustralia.com.au http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This details the relevant licence conditions, including the full legal code. Papaya Australia is the peak industry body for the Australian papaya industry whose In referencing this document, the preferred aim is to encourage the growth and citation is: development of the industry. Papaya Plant Health Australia Ltd (2013) Biosecurity Australia aims to supply Australian Manual for the Papaya Industry (Version 1 August consumers with high-quality, papaya 2013).
    [Show full text]